Health-related quality of life (HRQL) is increasingly being measured to monitor the health of patients and document the usefulness of interventions. Such measures are particularly important for patients with chronic diseases such as heart failure where morbidity and mortality are high, and appropriate use of new interventions and health care strategies can favorably affect outcomes. The purpose of this study is to empirically compare the psychometric properties of two heart failure-specific instruments, namely, the Chronic Heart Failure and the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaires (CHQ and LHFQ, respectively). An important advantage of the CHQ is that patients' responses are anchored to activities that they routinely perform. Its disadvantage, however, is that it takes longer to administer than the LHFQ. In contrast, the major advantage of the LHFQ is its shorter administration time whereas its major disadvantage is that the questions may not be as patient-specific as the CHQ. Patients (n=210) will be recruited from an internal medicine practice in Indianapolis that serves a majority of indigent, predominantly African-American patients. Specifically, we intend to: 1) evaluate the reliability of the instruments, 2) compare the instruments' construct validity, 3) evaluate responsiveness by examining the minimal clinically important differences in patient survey scores over 26 weeks, and 4) compare the mode of administration (face-to-face and telephone interviews) and the feasibility of using each instrument. Interviews will be performed face- to-face upon enrollment, and then by telephone at 2 days, 4 weeks, 8 weeks and 26 weeks. Analyzes will be completed using descriptive statistics, Cronbach alpha and intraclass correlation coefficients, confirmatory factor analysis, and repeated measures analysis of variance. This study will provide important insights into the advantages and disadvantages of these instruments when used to measure HRQL in inner-city patients with heart failure.